Apple doesn't do ex-Pepsi employees anymore -- SJ learned a lesson the hard way by bringing in Sculley. To suggest that Apple will decline and start to disappear is a monumental insult to all the hand-picked-by-Steve execs, one of whom just earned over $50million last year.
The people running Apple weren't born yesterday, they know what they're doing. A lot of people have worked on every product Apple has ever brought to market and all those that didn't.
Basically, individuals or groups work up an idea, present to SJ to gauge his reaction and enthusiasm for the idea/product and things take off from there.
The thing Apple will miss the most after SJ retires are his negotiating skills (demands) with 3rd parties.
Some of the comments on here and on the net disgust me.
Yeah, people are quick to drop the masks on the net and not even maintain a semblance of civility when they should, sad, but we have to make do with that, such a large part of our lives is virtual...
Already done. Follow posted links. You could also read some of the multiple stories appearing today on this subject. Many of them include comments from corporate governance experts, and refer back to the previous history of disclosures. I have yet to hear from any of them that Apple has handled disclosure issues well in the past or that they're doing it any better now.
Might be some confused investors out there if Apple really blows away estimates when they report. If Apple gets down to 18 times trailing earnings in the next few weeks I'd buy it hand over fist (that is if I had the money to do that). However, I probably blow my load at 19 or 20 times earnings out of fear that it would rebound.
I wouldn't be too worried. A big reason reason Apple's been so successful is all the talented executives and engineers they have hired since Steve has come back. Those people are going to be with the company whether Steve's their or not. Slowly but surely they will likely lose their direction, but it take at least a decade for that to happen. Steve is very important and I hope he is able to work for a long time, but he has done a good enough job that Apple no longer needs him.
Could you find some other deity to blaspheme or better yet, just find a non-offensive expletive to express your emotions? I mean, unless you were praying to Jesus Christ about Steve's health ...
Deity? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Never mind he was a myth, the Man is not a Deity. Get over yourselves. This Son of God thing sure keeps hanging around though hundreds of years after his purported death they write a book about him.
And people continue to buy into it. Classic.
No one ever seems to chastise Mel Brooks for his blaspheming of YWVH [Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!] in his films, but people blow a gasket about Jesus Christ.
Ironically, it wouldn't even be his own name. Could someone call the Aramaic police. We need a proof read!
Nobody said "all the details." That's just a made-up standard on your part. The real standard is information which is material to a prudent investor, and I think it's impossible to argue with a straight face that Steve's ability to run Apple is immaterial to investors. The issue raised previously was that his condition was far more serious than investors were told, leaving the impression that Apple was deliberately prevaricating. They've consistently made the situation worse by giving out virtually no information and refusing to answer any and all questions. This is why corporate governance experts have repeatedly criticized Apple's handing of Steve's health issues.
They can get away with an awful lot "talk to the hand" if they aren't investigated by the SEC or sued by investors. Sadly Apple's investor relations have always stunk. Why they've chosen that path, I don't know. It's apparently a deliberate choice.
You are making an assumption here that investors are always interested in what is best for company. In many cases that is very much an incorrect assumption as overrode often are only interested in making money for themselves. Then you have the investors that are as flaky as a mad bat and want to misdirect the company or focus them on social issues or whatever. In this forum such investors are few and far between because everybody has a personal interest in Apples and their success. Out in the wild it is a far different situation, there are many "bad" investors with lots of money and poor business sense.
From personal experience I saw what happened to my firm when to many of the wrong types of investors got involved. They put pressure on management for impossible results. Suggest breaking up the company to maximize their returns; mergers or whatever. In other words if to many of your investors feel they can use your corporation for their personal gain you end in a lot of trouble due to poor decision making and mis direction. Our problems where solved via a buy out through a private equity firm.
Solved might not be the right word there but management can no focus on a rational restructuring. People aren't being asked to do totally stupid things though and that actually has a positive impact on all levels of employees.
In a nut shell what I'm saying is this being a publicly traded corporation isn't always a good thing. You can attract the wrong types of investors. Apple seems to want to keep investors at arms length and frankly I believe they have reasonable cause to do so. It simply isn't reasonable to placate every one especially consider how at odds there concerns may be to running a corporation. The simple fact is if you allow one investor and audience all will expect to have their input taken seriously. In the end I really don't think Apple has much of a choice, the number of investors is huge and there is no way to listen to them all.
Did you actually read my posts buddy? One issue is that he and his doctors might not know what exactly ails him, or they might be trying out a few things to help him, another is that it might be too complicated to explain. Yet another might be that his doctors consider it would put undue stress on their client for his recovery to be public with any information.
We know about the cancer history and the liver transplant, we know his doctors made an excellent prognosis on recovery after the liver transplant. One can easily assume his ailment is related to his medical history. What's more to know? As I said it's not as clear an ailment as breaking a leg, that is announce-able, but as his issues might be more complicate or unclear, what is apple to say? And where should they stop? What would suffice, blood tests? MRIs? Even if they did make an announcement, people would require even more yet, because that might not shed any light. So, in view of his medical history being a matter of public knowledge, as well for all the reasons mentioned, I think a medical leave of absence suffices as an announcement. Anything other than that could cause unwarranted panic, speculation, requests for even more information, invasion of privacy etc, etc.
Yeah - I did and I should have edited what I commented on. Mine was a comment on the distinction between disclosure and privacy, only. I tend to agree with the people that argue that when a person is so closely linked to a company's success there is a responsibility to disclose what is going on if it could change the fortunes of that company. I am not passing a judgement on the effects of such disclosure would have on the company. Were I an investor I would like to know, is what I am saying.
It would be up to Apple to decide what to disclose. I don't really think it can be too complicated for them to explain. We are not asking for a biology lesson here. We don't know if this is serious or not. A return of the cancer with a grim outlook, or as a previous poster noted, it could be a matter of organ rejection which is not that unusual and fairly controllable. It could be that the man is just not that strong any more and need some time to recharge his batteries. I agree that partial disclosure is difficult but by no means beyond what Apple can do.
But my main point was that partial disclosure does not need to mean invasion of privacy in the sense that it would impede SJ's recovery.
Wouldn't we like to believe that? But since when have his health issues been less serious than what was disclosed? Fundamentally this is the problem with Apple's approach to this issue. Investors will have to assume the worst because Apple and Steve refuse to say anything more. No oil on the water whatsoever.
You are free to believe what you want, however Steve said he will remain CEO. If you have faith in Steve's ability to run the company you should trust that he will step down if his health was going to affect his ability to continue performing his duties. Personally I trust him to do the right thing.
Yeah - I did and I should have edited what I commented on. Mine was a comment on the distinction between disclosure and privacy, only. I tend to agree with the people that argue that when a person is so closely linked to a company's success there is a responsibility to disclose what is going on if it could change the fortunes of that company. I am not passing a judgement on the effects of such disclosure would have on the company. Were I an investor I would like to know, is what I am saying.
It would be up to Apple to decide what to disclose. I don't really think it can be too complicated for them to explain. We are not asking for a biology lesson here. We don't know if this is serious or not. A return of the cancer with a grim outlook, or as a previous poster noted, it could be a matter of organ rejection which is not that unusual and fairly controllable. It could be that the man is just not that strong any more and need some time to recharge his batteries. I agree that partial disclosure is difficult but by no means beyond what Apple can do.
But my main point was that partial disclosure does not need to mean invasion of privacy in the sense that it would impede SJ's recovery.
You do have a point, that could be a possibility. But I feel after a point discussing this it's really a matter of preference and opinion on how apple proceeds with this.
No one ever seems to chastise Mel Brooks for his blaspheming of YWVH [Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!] in his films, but people blow a gasket about Jesus Christ.
Never saw the film but more accurately it would be YHWH [ Yahweh ]
Already done. Follow posted links. You could also read some of the multiple stories appearing today on this subject. Many of them include comments from corporate governance experts, and refer back to the previous history of disclosures.
First I have to dismiss that phrase "corporate governance experts" out of hand. It is nothing but fluffier and BS. There is no one right and true path for running a corporation. Frankly these guys often come off as the teacher that teaches because he can't do.
Quote:
I have yet to hear from any of them that Apple has handled disclosure issues well in the past or that they're doing it any better now.
Of course not, how can they profit indeed thrive if they are not critical of one of the biggest corporations going. I'm actually surprised you are this gullible. Think for a minute about the people demanding public succession plans. How can anyone with business experience see the release of such info as a good thing? Seriously? The same applies to releasing info on the CEOs health. You assume that such info would be used wisely by the investment community but I'd argue that would not be the case. There are wolves out there only interested in their own hunger.
I think the transition to making Cook temporary CEO last time was designed to smooth the transition - none would have been needed, in fact - had something gone wrong at the operating theatre. However unlikely. Otherwise the company would have been without a CEO.
The fact that Jobs has not relenquished his role for good this time indicates that it may not be that serious this time.
To work at Apple is the goal of some of the finest talent in the world.
Steve is impatient with life and intolerant of anyone not as focused and motivated as himself.
I have friends who have worked there for a decade or more. The people who came from Next are still there, and some have worked for Jobs for 2-3 decades. The attrition rate is minimal.
You are making an assumption here that investors are always interested in what is best for company. In many cases that is very much an incorrect assumption as overrode often are only interested in making money for themselves. Then you have the investors that are as flaky as a mad bat and want to misdirect the company or focus them on social issues or whatever. In this forum such investors are few and far between because everybody has a personal interest in Apples and their success. Out in the wild it is a far different situation, there are many "bad" investors with lots of money and poor business sense.
From personal experience I saw what happened to my firm when to many of the wrong types of investors got involved. They put pressure on management for impossible results. Suggest breaking up the company to maximize their returns; mergers or whatever. In other words if to many of your investors feel they can use your corporation for their personal gain you end in a lot of trouble due to poor decision making and mis direction. Our problems where solved via a buy out through a private equity firm.
Solved might not be the right word there but management can no focus on a rational restructuring. People aren't being asked to do totally stupid things though and that actually has a positive impact on all levels of employees.
In a nut shell what I'm saying is this being a publicly traded corporation isn't always a good thing. You can attract the wrong types of investors. Apple seems to want to keep investors at arms length and frankly I believe they have reasonable cause to do so. It simply isn't reasonable to placate every one especially consider how at odds there concerns may be to running a corporation. The simple fact is if you allow one investor and audience all will expect to have their input taken seriously. In the end I really don't think Apple has much of a choice, the number of investors is huge and there is no way to listen to them all.
Interesting, but I don't think companies get to distinguish between the investors they like and don't like. They're traded publicly, and this is a choice the owners made consciously years ago. They could have remained private, like Facebook for example. The benefits of public trading are huge but come with certain obligations. I don't think this is about placating any given investor or group of investors. The rules for public companies require that all material information must be disclosed.
The point I'm making here is that Apple exacerbates the problem by being so stingy on details. Rumors and fears fill the gap. Who benefits from that? Not ordinary investors, you can be sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
You are free to believe what you want, however Steve said he will remain CEO. If you have faith in Steve's ability to run the company you should trust that he will step down if his health was going to affect his ability to continue performing his duties. Personally I trust him to do the right thing.
We don't know what "remain as CEO" means for someone who isn't able to attend to executive duties on a day-to-day basis. If his role gets reduced to something less than ceremonial, then what's the point of the title? If he can't function as CEO, then perhaps it would be cleaner for him to step in the Chairman role and have the board appoint Cook as CEO.
First I have to dismiss that phrase "corporate governance experts" out of hand. It is nothing but fluffier and BS. There is no one right and true path for running a corporation. Frankly these guys often come off as the teacher that teaches because he can't do.
Of course not, how can they profit indeed thrive if they are not critical of one of the biggest corporations going. I'm actually surprised you are this gullible. Think for a minute about the people demanding public succession plans. How can anyone with business experience see the release of such info as a good thing? Seriously? The same applies to releasing info on the CEOs health. You assume that such info would be used wisely by the investment community but I'd argue that would not be the case. There are wolves out there only interested in their own hunger.
We don't know what "remain as CEO" means for someone who isn't able to attend to executive duties on a day-to-day basis. If his role gets reduced to something less than ceremonial, then what's the point of the title? If he can't function as CEO, then perhaps it would be cleaner for him to step in the Chairman role and have the board appoint Cook as CEO.
We don't know what "attend to executive duties on a day-to-day basis" means either. For some CEOs it means playing golf with some other CEO. Steve never did stuff like that anyway. He has a phone and people who he trusts and depends on. He can delegate tasks. What do you want? Does he have to punch a time clock?
I did read though that he is a bastard to the nth degree. Apple makes cool stuff but I heard Apple is a nightmare company to work for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
YOu heard wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Absolutely everything I've ever read about working at Apple at a level where you'd get to hear Steve's words corroborates the opposite of your post.
I, personally, had frequent contact with many members of the original Mac team during the 1983 development of the original Mac. They would drop by our Sunnyvale store to see what was going on in the "outside" world and drop a few hints of what was going on at Apple.
The team members often wore T-Shirts that said "Working 100 hours [a week] and loving it!". They were totally high on life!
Ten of our top employees left us to work at Apple -- a thing of pride to the individuals, Apple and our company.
Comments
The people running Apple weren't born yesterday, they know what they're doing. A lot of people have worked on every product Apple has ever brought to market and all those that didn't.
Basically, individuals or groups work up an idea, present to SJ to gauge his reaction and enthusiasm for the idea/product and things take off from there.
The thing Apple will miss the most after SJ retires are his negotiating skills (demands) with 3rd parties.
Some of the comments on here and on the net disgust me.
Yeah, people are quick to drop the masks on the net and not even maintain a semblance of civility when they should, sad, but we have to make do with that, such a large part of our lives is virtual...
Please cite!
Already done. Follow posted links. You could also read some of the multiple stories appearing today on this subject. Many of them include comments from corporate governance experts, and refer back to the previous history of disclosures. I have yet to hear from any of them that Apple has handled disclosure issues well in the past or that they're doing it any better now.
Stock buying opportunity coming...
Might be some confused investors out there if Apple really blows away estimates when they report. If Apple gets down to 18 times trailing earnings in the next few weeks I'd buy it hand over fist (that is if I had the money to do that). However, I probably blow my load at 19 or 20 times earnings out of fear that it would rebound.
I wouldn't be too worried. A big reason reason Apple's been so successful is all the talented executives and engineers they have hired since Steve has come back. Those people are going to be with the company whether Steve's their or not. Slowly but surely they will likely lose their direction, but it take at least a decade for that to happen. Steve is very important and I hope he is able to work for a long time, but he has done a good enough job that Apple no longer needs him.
Could you find some other deity to blaspheme or better yet, just find a non-offensive expletive to express your emotions? I mean, unless you were praying to Jesus Christ about Steve's health ...
Deity? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Never mind he was a myth, the Man is not a Deity. Get over yourselves. This Son of God thing sure keeps hanging around though hundreds of years after his purported death they write a book about him.
And people continue to buy into it. Classic.
No one ever seems to chastise Mel Brooks for his blaspheming of YWVH [Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!] in his films, but people blow a gasket about Jesus Christ.
Ironically, it wouldn't even be his own name. Could someone call the Aramaic police. We need a proof read!
Nobody said "all the details." That's just a made-up standard on your part. The real standard is information which is material to a prudent investor, and I think it's impossible to argue with a straight face that Steve's ability to run Apple is immaterial to investors. The issue raised previously was that his condition was far more serious than investors were told, leaving the impression that Apple was deliberately prevaricating. They've consistently made the situation worse by giving out virtually no information and refusing to answer any and all questions. This is why corporate governance experts have repeatedly criticized Apple's handing of Steve's health issues.
They can get away with an awful lot "talk to the hand" if they aren't investigated by the SEC or sued by investors. Sadly Apple's investor relations have always stunk. Why they've chosen that path, I don't know. It's apparently a deliberate choice.
You are making an assumption here that investors are always interested in what is best for company. In many cases that is very much an incorrect assumption as overrode often are only interested in making money for themselves. Then you have the investors that are as flaky as a mad bat and want to misdirect the company or focus them on social issues or whatever. In this forum such investors are few and far between because everybody has a personal interest in Apples and their success. Out in the wild it is a far different situation, there are many "bad" investors with lots of money and poor business sense.
From personal experience I saw what happened to my firm when to many of the wrong types of investors got involved. They put pressure on management for impossible results. Suggest breaking up the company to maximize their returns; mergers or whatever. In other words if to many of your investors feel they can use your corporation for their personal gain you end in a lot of trouble due to poor decision making and mis direction. Our problems where solved via a buy out through a private equity firm.
Solved might not be the right word there but management can no focus on a rational restructuring. People aren't being asked to do totally stupid things though and that actually has a positive impact on all levels of employees.
In a nut shell what I'm saying is this being a publicly traded corporation isn't always a good thing. You can attract the wrong types of investors. Apple seems to want to keep investors at arms length and frankly I believe they have reasonable cause to do so. It simply isn't reasonable to placate every one especially consider how at odds there concerns may be to running a corporation. The simple fact is if you allow one investor and audience all will expect to have their input taken seriously. In the end I really don't think Apple has much of a choice, the number of investors is huge and there is no way to listen to them all.
Did you actually read my posts buddy? One issue is that he and his doctors might not know what exactly ails him, or they might be trying out a few things to help him, another is that it might be too complicated to explain. Yet another might be that his doctors consider it would put undue stress on their client for his recovery to be public with any information.
We know about the cancer history and the liver transplant, we know his doctors made an excellent prognosis on recovery after the liver transplant. One can easily assume his ailment is related to his medical history. What's more to know? As I said it's not as clear an ailment as breaking a leg, that is announce-able, but as his issues might be more complicate or unclear, what is apple to say? And where should they stop? What would suffice, blood tests? MRIs? Even if they did make an announcement, people would require even more yet, because that might not shed any light. So, in view of his medical history being a matter of public knowledge, as well for all the reasons mentioned, I think a medical leave of absence suffices as an announcement. Anything other than that could cause unwarranted panic, speculation, requests for even more information, invasion of privacy etc, etc.
Yeah - I did and I should have edited what I commented on. Mine was a comment on the distinction between disclosure and privacy, only. I tend to agree with the people that argue that when a person is so closely linked to a company's success there is a responsibility to disclose what is going on if it could change the fortunes of that company. I am not passing a judgement on the effects of such disclosure would have on the company. Were I an investor I would like to know, is what I am saying.
It would be up to Apple to decide what to disclose. I don't really think it can be too complicated for them to explain. We are not asking for a biology lesson here. We don't know if this is serious or not. A return of the cancer with a grim outlook, or as a previous poster noted, it could be a matter of organ rejection which is not that unusual and fairly controllable. It could be that the man is just not that strong any more and need some time to recharge his batteries. I agree that partial disclosure is difficult but by no means beyond what Apple can do.
But my main point was that partial disclosure does not need to mean invasion of privacy in the sense that it would impede SJ's recovery.
Wouldn't we like to believe that? But since when have his health issues been less serious than what was disclosed? Fundamentally this is the problem with Apple's approach to this issue. Investors will have to assume the worst because Apple and Steve refuse to say anything more. No oil on the water whatsoever.
You are free to believe what you want, however Steve said he will remain CEO. If you have faith in Steve's ability to run the company you should trust that he will step down if his health was going to affect his ability to continue performing his duties. Personally I trust him to do the right thing.
Yeah - I did and I should have edited what I commented on. Mine was a comment on the distinction between disclosure and privacy, only. I tend to agree with the people that argue that when a person is so closely linked to a company's success there is a responsibility to disclose what is going on if it could change the fortunes of that company. I am not passing a judgement on the effects of such disclosure would have on the company. Were I an investor I would like to know, is what I am saying.
It would be up to Apple to decide what to disclose. I don't really think it can be too complicated for them to explain. We are not asking for a biology lesson here. We don't know if this is serious or not. A return of the cancer with a grim outlook, or as a previous poster noted, it could be a matter of organ rejection which is not that unusual and fairly controllable. It could be that the man is just not that strong any more and need some time to recharge his batteries. I agree that partial disclosure is difficult but by no means beyond what Apple can do.
But my main point was that partial disclosure does not need to mean invasion of privacy in the sense that it would impede SJ's recovery.
You do have a point, that could be a possibility. But I feel after a point discussing this it's really a matter of preference and opinion on how apple proceeds with this.
No one ever seems to chastise Mel Brooks for his blaspheming of YWVH [Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!] in his films, but people blow a gasket about Jesus Christ.
Never saw the film but more accurately it would be YHWH [ Yahweh ]
Already done. Follow posted links. You could also read some of the multiple stories appearing today on this subject. Many of them include comments from corporate governance experts, and refer back to the previous history of disclosures.
First I have to dismiss that phrase "corporate governance experts" out of hand. It is nothing but fluffier and BS. There is no one right and true path for running a corporation. Frankly these guys often come off as the teacher that teaches because he can't do.
I have yet to hear from any of them that Apple has handled disclosure issues well in the past or that they're doing it any better now.
Of course not, how can they profit indeed thrive if they are not critical of one of the biggest corporations going. I'm actually surprised you are this gullible. Think for a minute about the people demanding public succession plans. How can anyone with business experience see the release of such info as a good thing? Seriously? The same applies to releasing info on the CEOs health. You assume that such info would be used wisely by the investment community but I'd argue that would not be the case. There are wolves out there only interested in their own hunger.
The fact that Jobs has not relenquished his role for good this time indicates that it may not be that serious this time.
But I dont know.
I did read though that he is a bastard to the nth degree. Apple makes cool stuff but I heard Apple is a nightmare company to work for.
YOu heard wrong.
To work at Apple is the goal of some of the finest talent in the world.
Steve is impatient with life and intolerant of anyone not as focused and motivated as himself.
To work at Apple is the goal of some of the finest talent in the world.
Steve is impatient with life and intolerant of anyone not as focused and motivated as himself.
I have friends who have worked there for a decade or more. The people who came from Next are still there, and some have worked for Jobs for 2-3 decades. The attrition rate is minimal.
Really, people like it.
You are making an assumption here that investors are always interested in what is best for company. In many cases that is very much an incorrect assumption as overrode often are only interested in making money for themselves. Then you have the investors that are as flaky as a mad bat and want to misdirect the company or focus them on social issues or whatever. In this forum such investors are few and far between because everybody has a personal interest in Apples and their success. Out in the wild it is a far different situation, there are many "bad" investors with lots of money and poor business sense.
From personal experience I saw what happened to my firm when to many of the wrong types of investors got involved. They put pressure on management for impossible results. Suggest breaking up the company to maximize their returns; mergers or whatever. In other words if to many of your investors feel they can use your corporation for their personal gain you end in a lot of trouble due to poor decision making and mis direction. Our problems where solved via a buy out through a private equity firm.
Solved might not be the right word there but management can no focus on a rational restructuring. People aren't being asked to do totally stupid things though and that actually has a positive impact on all levels of employees.
In a nut shell what I'm saying is this being a publicly traded corporation isn't always a good thing. You can attract the wrong types of investors. Apple seems to want to keep investors at arms length and frankly I believe they have reasonable cause to do so. It simply isn't reasonable to placate every one especially consider how at odds there concerns may be to running a corporation. The simple fact is if you allow one investor and audience all will expect to have their input taken seriously. In the end I really don't think Apple has much of a choice, the number of investors is huge and there is no way to listen to them all.
Interesting, but I don't think companies get to distinguish between the investors they like and don't like. They're traded publicly, and this is a choice the owners made consciously years ago. They could have remained private, like Facebook for example. The benefits of public trading are huge but come with certain obligations. I don't think this is about placating any given investor or group of investors. The rules for public companies require that all material information must be disclosed.
The point I'm making here is that Apple exacerbates the problem by being so stingy on details. Rumors and fears fill the gap. Who benefits from that? Not ordinary investors, you can be sure.
You are free to believe what you want, however Steve said he will remain CEO. If you have faith in Steve's ability to run the company you should trust that he will step down if his health was going to affect his ability to continue performing his duties. Personally I trust him to do the right thing.
We don't know what "remain as CEO" means for someone who isn't able to attend to executive duties on a day-to-day basis. If his role gets reduced to something less than ceremonial, then what's the point of the title? If he can't function as CEO, then perhaps it would be cleaner for him to step in the Chairman role and have the board appoint Cook as CEO.
First I have to dismiss that phrase "corporate governance experts" out of hand. It is nothing but fluffier and BS. There is no one right and true path for running a corporation. Frankly these guys often come off as the teacher that teaches because he can't do.
Of course not, how can they profit indeed thrive if they are not critical of one of the biggest corporations going. I'm actually surprised you are this gullible. Think for a minute about the people demanding public succession plans. How can anyone with business experience see the release of such info as a good thing? Seriously? The same applies to releasing info on the CEOs health. You assume that such info would be used wisely by the investment community but I'd argue that would not be the case. There are wolves out there only interested in their own hunger.
All knowledge must be rejected. Perfect.
We don't know what "remain as CEO" means for someone who isn't able to attend to executive duties on a day-to-day basis. If his role gets reduced to something less than ceremonial, then what's the point of the title? If he can't function as CEO, then perhaps it would be cleaner for him to step in the Chairman role and have the board appoint Cook as CEO.
We don't know what "attend to executive duties on a day-to-day basis" means either. For some CEOs it means playing golf with some other CEO. Steve never did stuff like that anyway. He has a phone and people who he trusts and depends on. He can delegate tasks. What do you want? Does he have to punch a time clock?
I did read though that he is a bastard to the nth degree. Apple makes cool stuff but I heard Apple is a nightmare company to work for.
YOu heard wrong.
Absolutely everything I've ever read about working at Apple at a level where you'd get to hear Steve's words corroborates the opposite of your post.
I, personally, had frequent contact with many members of the original Mac team during the 1983 development of the original Mac. They would drop by our Sunnyvale store to see what was going on in the "outside" world and drop a few hints of what was going on at Apple.
The team members often wore T-Shirts that said "Working 100 hours [a week] and loving it!". They were totally high on life!
Ten of our top employees left us to work at Apple -- a thing of pride to the individuals, Apple and our company.
"You can't buy that!"